West Virginia: Democracy Loses, or Does It--Governor May Decide He Wants Power

I have established lonng ago that Democrats (left wing kind, and political kind) do not believe in democracy. Thus, it was no surprise that the first reports out of West Virginia were that Democrats intended to deprive people of the right to vote for the successor of Robert Byrd until 2012 (because the Democratic governor could insure that a Democrat holds the seat until 2012by appoiting a Demo crat. Democrats presently control West Virginia (both Senators and the governor, although now Byrd has died). You can imagine what the mainstream media, and the Democrats, would be saying about Republicans if Republicans played this game to avoid a special electon in November. But Democrats are known to be sleazy (plus the media is corrupt). Thus, no one expects better of Democrats. They expected to get away with denying the people of West Virginia a democratic vote on who will represent them for two full years. (It is beyond the scope of this article as to what is wrong with the people of West Virginia, to have sent two Democratic Senators to Washington, when Democrats are sabotaging West Virginia on energy every chance they get..)

Hold on, though. The "news" today is that the governor of West Virginia wants to run for the Senate seat formerly held by Robert Byrd, IF a special election is held in November. But the governor promises not to appoint himself!!!!

You see what is happening here. It is a contest between the desire of West Virginaia Democrats to deny people the vote and the governor's desire to be Senator (if he thinks he can do it, and politicians are arrogant that way). Who will win this contest between party power and PERSONAL POWER.

One thing we can be sure of: the people of West Virginia will not be a consideration. Wait. I don't know if the attorney general of West Virginia is a Democrat. What if he happens to be a Republican---despite my clear impression otherwise? Does not matter. The governor, and Democrats, would never accept the determination of a Repubican attorney general, unless it fit their own agenda. They would SUE (might, of course, still happpen, even if the AG is a Democrat, from either people interested in democracy or people who think the decision is hurting their own grab for power).

Isn't it great to be living in a country where the people's vote, and the people's opinion on something like health care or the Arizona illegal immigraton law, matters?